lack of emotional depth and communicative connection, what surfaces in
these impersonal rational processes is the recognition of the importance of
physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being, a factor in “grief management”
that cannot be manipulated through the modernist subject-object paradigm.
While in the late modern stream respect and the willingness to listen are
decoys for manipulation, in the postmodern stream they are integral activi-
ties to ensure the autonomy of the self. Although there are two streams within
neo-modernism sharing a similar context, Walter clearly favors the post-
modern over the late modern. The late modern approach, he argues, intensifies
the modern attitude through advanced and reflexive forms of mastery, espe-
cially psychology and grief management. What singularly distinguishes the
late modern attitude from the modern and the postmodern is its “therapeu-
tic conviction that we can master what we can touch or talk about” (Farrell
quoted in Walter 1994:40). The postmodern attitude is driven not by a sense
of mastery, but through the unfolding of selves in dialogue. In contrast to
traditional and modern views, neo-modern death is neither rapid nor hid-
den but prolonged, and is best understood in the context of the mixture of
traditionally divided public and private spheres (Walter indicates that can-
cer and AIDS are representative of this new paradigm). In particular, the pri-
vate feelings and experiences of the dying person are now normatively viewed
as part of the legitimate concerns of the public professional (Walter 1994:41).
The new emphasis is on feelings and the expression of feelings and is gov-
erned by the normative expectation of choice and the autonomy of the dying
individual. The prototypical religious attitude is pluralistic, prone to ritual
mixing (with the cooperation and encouragement of medical experts) and
religious syncretism. Narrative voice becomes the medium through which
the dying person communicates their wishes which are to be respected and
listened to. Within neo-modernism, the “bad death” is one in which the auton-
omy of the dying person is violated. The norm, contrary to traditional nor-
mative expectations, is that one is required to come up with their own
“traditions” – a “personal mythology to live by” (Walter 1994:28).
As I will outline in my analysis of postmodern responses to death, it is my
position that the encouragement to develop a “personal mythology to live
by” during the process of dying may have the opposite effect of the intended
means of care and consolation because mytho-poetic language, rooted in
religious practice, is not necessarily communicative in nature. Mytho-poetic
language is expressive, and while potentially recognizable may also be incom-
184 • Kenneth G. MacKendrick